The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

Preservation , Petroleum, and Politics in Arctic Alaska

Note: Background data pertaining to the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge can be found
in the
Natural Resources section of ArcticCircle.

Introduction

For more than a decade, debate over drilling for oil on the Coastal Plain
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] has continued unabated.
This proposal, urged by the oil companies and supported by most Alaskan
government officials, has drawn full scale opposition from powerful
private environmental organizations representing millions of members thoughout
the United States. The area's Inupiat Eskimo and Gwich'in Athabaskan-speaking
Indian inhabitants are actively involved in the debate as well, their
particular views significantly shaped by the nature of their relationship to
the economy, the land, and its natural resources. Since the U.S. Congress
carries legislative responsibility for actions pertaining to the Refuge, it
must decide whether or not to open the Coastal Plain for possible oil
development.

The Problem

In May of 1995, the U.S. Senate proposed to add a substantial sum to the
projected federal budget - the funds derived from potential leasing revenue
received from drilling in the Refuge. Such action, spearheaded by Sen. Frank
Murkowski R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the House Resources
Committee, has again brought the debate over the Arctic Refuge to the fore.
On September 21st,1995, the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
voted [13-7] to add an anticipated $2.6 billion from this projected
revenue to be divided equally between the State of Alaska and the U.S.
Treasury. Any additional revenue would be used to help maintain national parks
and wildlife refuges elsewhere in the nation. Similar
legislation was approved by the House Committee on Resources a few
days earlier.

The White House, though the Office of
Management and Budget, has replied that if the federal budget bill opens
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, the
President will veto it. Thus, the Arctic Refuge has become the focal
point for an increasingly acrimonious debate between the administration
and the U.S. Congress over economic interests and environmental policy.

The essence of the conflict lies in two facts: One, the possibility that
the Arctic Refuge contains one of the best remaining prospects for significant
oil discovery in the United States; the other, that the Refuge contains some
of the last true remaining 'wilderness' in the country. It also provides a
habitat for the Porcupine Caribou Herd - one of the largest in the world
with over 150,000 animals. This herd, whose calving grounds reside on the
tundra of the Refuge, is an important means of subsistence for the region's
indigenous inhabitants.

The basic argument of the oil industry is that less than 1 percent of the
Refuge (12,700 acres on the coastal plain) will be affected by oil
drilling and production. Rising oil imports also present a threat to
U.S. national security. And finally, new oil production in the Refuge
will not only raise the U.S. gross national product by many billions of
dollars. It will also significantly increase employment nationwide.

As to the likelihood of obtaining commercially viable deposits, a
1980s Department of Interior report estimated that the possibility of
finding a total of 3.4 million barrels of oil in the region is one in five,
rather good odds given the potential of high return. If a discovery was made
soon, say by the year 2005, the field could reach peak output of 800,000
barrels a day - 10 percent of all U.S. production. Recently, a U.S. Geological
Survey report estimated that there is a 5 percent likelihood of finding 5.15
billion barrels of oil in the Refuge, and a 95 percent chance of finding 148
million barrels of oil - a projection substantially lower than their 1989
estimate of a possible maximum amount of 11.67 million barrels of oil (5
percent likelihood) and the minimum projected amount of 697 million
barrels (95 percent likelihood). This latest government figure is seen
by those supporting oil development as excessively conservative.

The counter argument of environmental organizations is that oil is a
nonrenewable resource. Once oil and gas is extracted from the land, it will be
gone. And if the government's national security objective is to limit
reliance on foreign oil imports and create a sustainable long-range energy
policy, there are better ways of achieving it - such as improving the fuel
efficiency of motor vehicles. Holding relatively constant the production of
automobiles, a gradual change in fuel economy standards from the present 27.5
miles per gallon to 40 mpg would reduce demand by two million barrels a day by
the year 2005 - far more than could be produced in the same period by
extracting oil from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge.

The indigenous population most apprehensive about oil development in the
Refuge are the 7,000 Gwich'in Indians of northeastern Alaska and northwestern
Canada. What they fear most is that such an enterprise will disrupt the
Porcupine caribou calving grounds resulting in a serious loss of their most
important subsistence food.

Inupiat Eskimo subsistence hunters also worry about a possible reduction
of the caribou herd. But in contrast to the Gwitch'in, the Inupiat on
Alaska's North Slope and the coastal plain stand to gain economically from the
leasing of this potentially rich land to the oil companies. Concerns such as
these can easily heighten
conflicts between those northern Natives who rely on hunting and fishing
for much of their daily sustenance, and those who look to oil-generated
wage employment as their most important means of economic livelihood.
The active struggle of the Gwich'in in opposition to oil development on
the Coastal Plain of the Refuge also promote strained
relations with non-Native Alaskans who perceive their jobs and standard of
living to be closely linked to the continued production of North Slope oil.

Nor are frictions limited to the interplay of multinational oil companies,
environmental oganizations, and indigenous peoples. Similar conflicts exist
between various departments of the national, state, and local governments. For
example, within the US government itself, the Department of Interior's
Mineral Management Service enables oil and gas development through their
leasing enterprises; while another agency, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, is committed to protecting the fauna and other renewable
resources within its jurisdiction.

Similar strains exist between the federal and state governments. While the
federal government is a major owner of potential petroleum-producing property
in Alaska, its revenue needs are only minimally tied to these lands. Thus, its
perspective on oil extaction is more likely to address national energy
levels, international trade, and foreign policy issues.

For the state of Alaska, on the other hand, the revenue base is
intimately related to oil. The Prudhoe Bay field, the largest single
accumulation of oil ever discovered in North America, is located on lands
owned by the state. In the fifteen years following that discovery in 1968, the
proportion of the state budget utilizing petroleum revenues has risen from an
annual average of about 12 percent to more than 90 percent; and it remains
extremely high today at approximately 85 percent.

Still, whether the focus is political or economic, both the national and
Alaska state governments have an important commitment to develop mineral
resources and assist those corporations extracting them -- for revenues and
employment from such companies are central to their government's financial
welfare. Thus, given the present condition of the U.S. economy , it is not
surprising that the issue of extracting oil from the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge has again become an arena of crucial debate within
Congress and the United States at large.

The Assignment

In analyzing the issues raised in this case study, participants are
encouraged to explore the growing number of documents on the world wide web
as well as books, articles, government documents, and other published materials
available in school, college and university libraries. For your convenience,
much of the data on the world wide web pertaining to the Arctic National
Wildlife
Refuge can be found in the
Natural Resources section of Arctic Circle under 'The Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge: A Special Report. See especially the section which
discusses contrasting views - concluding with:
The Arctic Refuge and
Its Coastal Plain: The Debate.

After completing your review of these presentations, along with other
articles, reports, and documents available in your library, you should:

(a)
undertake a comparative analysis of the differing positions held by the
interested parties in the debate
- including the various economic, social, political, and cultural factors
underlying these views and actions;

and

(b) Offer
your own recommendation as to what action should be taken by the U.S.
Congress and/or other groups regarding the future of the Arctic Refuge.

If you
wish to become actively involved in helping to shape the future of the Arctic
Refuge, you are encourged to contact one or more of the organizations
listed in the section on the Debate.